Jewish World Review Sept. 26, 2001 / 9 Tishrei, 5762
http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- AT least they had enough sense to condemn the attack. At least they understand that it's a bad thing that happened, that it was wrong. And here, at least, they're able to discern who the injured party is. This may sound elementary, but take nothing for granted. They've been confused about simpler things.
The touching photographs of people in other countries reacting to the American catastrophe betray the fear of god they must have acquired for their own hides upon seeing America so vulnerable. The way in which the attack on the U.S. was felt around the world indicates that other countries understand the meaning of America and why we're here; they are not indifferent to our presence on the globe. Which would imply that, generally speaking, America is good; America does the right thing.
But rewind to the week just before the disaster: There was an eight-day UN "racism conference" that crowned a growing anti-Americanism which, in addition to trying to bankrupt the U.S. through bizarre schemes like reparations and the Kyoto Treaty, saw us get kicked off of at least two international commissions. So could it be that the other countries do in fact know better? That perhaps the motives for their claims on us are disingenuous? That they stomp their feet protesting their virtuous intentions and our evil ones, all the while knowing that Dad's right?
If so, it's a shame that it took all this for the truth to come out. Maybe now they will also admit that Israel has been serving as body armor, absorbing most of the terrorist aggression that has the rest of us as its ultimate targets. Perhaps the international community will finally let Israel do what it needs to do, to save its self and, ultimately, help the world do the same.
Unless, of course, the point is that they don't want Israel to save itself. In which case the world should stop beating around the Hanukkah bush, and quit having the Arabs do its bidding-just start mixing the poisoned Kool-Aid now; it would be far more efficient than these drawn out, ongoing conferences of condemnation. Why do they feel they even need excuses like equating Zionism with racism? They should be more honest like Hitler.
Meanwhile, other countries are telling us not to retaliate for the September 11th attack without consulting other countries, getting consent and building coalitions-and still other countries are advising us to not retaliate at all so as to not anger the terrorist gods.
As both an American and a Jew-and therefore twice a racist as far as the UN is concerned-I feel unencumbered to speak freely.
So once Israel is destroyed (the UN having airlifted any Jews of color to safety), and America loses the rest of its skylines, the coast will be cleared for Arabs to re-enslave Africans and for Africans to re-enslave each other, and for the Asian and Eastern European slave trades to continue unabated.
Given this grim outlook-and given the European Union's self-destructive and counterproductive tendencies-we must ask ourselves now: Do we really need to heed the advice and demands of other countries? Indeed, is there even any need for other countries to exist? (I'm not saying destroy them; I'm just pointing out their irrelevance.)
The only reason people even visit other countries is for the landscapes and architecture, and most of that is already here. Just look at Las Vegas: Hotel-casinos styled after exotic places from all over the world, with names like Venetian, Monte Carlo, Mandalay Bay, Sahara, Rio and Barbary Coast. There's also one called Excalibur, where Camelot is alive and kicking. Even the Egyptian pyramids are there-as is Paris, with the Eiffel tower bursting through the buffet. (New York is there too, so the French can have their Statue of Liberty back, because we already have another one in Vegas.) Basically, anything other countries have, Vegas built. If Vegas didn't think of it, it must not be that important.
After all, these are countries who every time we have to execute a high-profile criminal-even a terrorist-criticize our human rights. (Our human rights record is so bad, people in other countries die just thinking about coming here.) But people do get executed in other countries-just not the criminals. Meanwhile, accolades for most tolerant nation usually go to some Scandinavian country. (How many off-white people do you see running around Sweden?) Then they get on us for our medical system-where an illegal alien gets treated in the time it takes other countries to put a citizen on a waiting list. So why should the opinions of other countries even matter? Why should we care what they think-about anything? Especially those freeloaders in the UN. (I realize their buildings are technically not on US soil, so we can't exactly kick them out, but couldn't we erect a very tall black wall around those 18 acres so as to at least spoil their view-which is the main reason they've entrenched themselves here anyway.)
It's time as well to put an end to that Nobel committee-also run by other countries. I mean, Arafat gets a prize but Bill Clinton doesn't? I suppose they would have given him one except that, hard as he tried, Israel is still standing. (Clinton reportedly berated Arafat, in the midst of the weekly Jerusalem bombings that were occurring before September 11th, for spoiling his chances at the Prize. What might he have said? "Oh sure: Now you cooperate!" ) Boy, if they ever try to give me one of those things, I'll protest: "But I didn't kill anybody!"
Meanwhile, NATO members are already backing out of their creed "an attack on one is an attack on all," with Italy refusing to send its troops for any possible U.S. retaliation and Norway and Germany declining participation in any direct military NATO action.
Apparently, NATO's a tough guy when it comes to defending a non-member state (heck, a non-state) by ganging up on a nation trying to contain a civil war within its borders, as it did in 1999. But when it comes to the only real threat facing the world (not to mention a member state), it gets cold feet.
Granted, as with the boy who cried wolf, NATO may not be eager to jump into another US-led coalition just two years after the Kosovo false alarm that became a disaster. But they should be able to distinguish between an American president fabricating a crisis, and one trying to solve one.
So what is their thinking? They've acknowledged that ultimately September 11th is not only America's problem, so at least they have an inkling that they could be next. Could it be that much of Europe is pulling a France: "Don't alienate terrorists; they could be our future masters." In other words, rather than go out on a limb and risk some casualties by helping America now, they're opting for a slow death later-from which the Americans will have to save them again.
A cop in a movie once said that nobody likes the policeman-until they need him. And then he's everybody's daddy. So it is